DOCSLIB.ORG

The Desperate Dozen: Southeastern Freshwater Fishes on the Brink

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Desperate Dozen: Southeastern Freshwater Fishes on the Brink Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings Volume 1 Number 51 Number 51 (December 2009) Article 4 12-1-2009 The Desperate Dozen: Southeastern Freshwater Fishes on the Brink Bernard R. Kuhajda Anna L. George James D. Williams Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings Part of the Marine Biology Commons Recommended Citation Kuhajda, Bernard R.; George, Anna L.; and Williams, James D. (2009) "The Desperate Dozen: Southeastern Freshwater Fishes on the Brink," Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings: No. 51. Available at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings/vol1/iss51/4 This Original Research Article is brought to you for free and open access by Volunteer, Open Access, Library Journals (VOL Journals), published in partnership with The University of Tennessee (UT) University Libraries. This article has been accepted for inclusion in Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings by an authorized editor. For more information, please visit https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings. The Desperate Dozen: Southeastern Freshwater Fishes on the Brink This original research article is available in Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings: https://trace.tennessee.edu/ sfcproceedings/vol1/iss51/4 December 2009 Kuhajda et al. – The Desperate Dozen The Desperate Dozen: Southeastern Freshwater Fishes on the Brink BERNARD R. KUHAJDA 1, ANNA L. GEORGE 2, AND JAMES D. WILLIAMS 3 1Department of Biological Sciences, Box 870345, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0345, Email [email protected]. 2Tennessee Aquarium Conservation Institute, PO Box 11048, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401-2048, Email [email protected]. 3Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Museum Road and Newell Drive, Gainesville, Florida 32611, Email [email protected]. THE DESPERATE DOZEN: AN INTRODUCTION We created the initial list of the most imperiled south - eastern fishes by using species listed as Endangered or Aquatic animals have experienced dramatic declines in Threatened by Warren et al. (2000), eliminating those recent decades (Abell et al., 2000). There are currently 582 species outside of the range of the Southeast as defined by species of animals on the Federal list of Endangered and the Southeastern Fishes Council (SFC) constitution. Threatened species, of which 268 (46%) are found in fresh - Species described since 2000 were added to the list, but water habitats. Of the diverse assemblage of 675 fishes undescribed species were not included in the ranking. found in southeastern waters, more than a quarter are con - Lists of imperilment created by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife sidered imperiled (Warren et al., 2000). While all of the Service (USFWS) or state wildlife agencies were not con - Earth’s ecosystems are threatened to some extent, fresh - sulted in SFC’s identification of the Desperate Dozen fish - water habitats are recognized to be at severe risk because es at any stage of the process. The Southeastern Fishes of their scarcity and the high demands placed on them by Council Executive Committee (SFC ExCom) was asked to humans (Vitousek, 1997; Wood et al., 2000; Postel, 2002). review and rank the initial list of 40 species. Criteria used The combined effects of agriculture, damming, dredging, for ranking, in order of importance, were distribution, construction, logging, overharvest, and pollution are number of populations, low abundance, and severity of destroying this critical resource for animals, plants, and threats. Species were not chosen to represent a broad geo - even humanity itself (Master, 1990; Richter et al., 1997). graphic or taxonomic spectrum, nor based on the ease or This major conservation crisis calls for immediate action potential success of their recovery. to conserve and protect the remaining populations and Through this ranking system, the SFC ExCom devel - their habitats. oped a list of 14 potential Desperate Dozen species, with a When resources are limited, one of the most important brief synopsis on the status of each. This list was sent to steps in conservation is prioritization (Master, 1991; four reviewers. Two responded with their ranking of the Possingham et al., 2002). We sought to determine where potential species and included three other species to con - immediate conservation actions were needed to prevent sider. The SFC ExCom then ranked these 17 species, all loss of native southeastern freshwater fish diversity. We listed as Endangered in the latest list of the conservation decided to focus our efforts on the Desperate Dozen fish - status of imperiled freshwater fishes of North America es, the 12 species that local and regional experts would (Jelks et al., 2008). The 12 most highly ranked species identify as the most likely to become extinct in the from the SFC ExCom and external reviewers were select - Southeast. Our goal is to use this list to raise awareness of ed as the Desperate Dozen. After the ranking based on the plight of freshwater habitats in the Southeast, including level of imperilment, species were arranged in phylogenet - rivers, creeks, wetlands, springs, and caves (Abell et al., ic order so that all would receive equal attention. We con - 2000). By highlighting these 12 species, ranging from the tacted experts on each species to provide the following spring pygmy sunfish ( Elassoma alabamae ) to the brief accounts on the Desperate Dozen, which include Alabama sturgeon ( Scaphirhynchus suttkusi ), we hope to background, distribution, abundance, threats, and pro - encourage partnerships to address the needs of our fresh - posed conservation actions. water animals and hopefully prevent them from slipping into extinction. 10 SFC PROCEEDINGS No. 51 THE DESPERATE DOZEN : important in times of economic shortfalls (Selin and Chevez, 1995; Heathcote, 1998). Other commonly recom - ALABAMA STURGEON , Scaphirhynchus suttkusi mended conservation actions for the Desperate Dozen SLENDER CHUB , Erimystax cahni include monitoring abundance, assessing water quality CHUCKY MADTOM , Noturus crypticus and quantity, surveying for additional populations, devel - ALABAMA CAVEFISH , Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni oping propagation programs, and examining the genetic PYGMY SCULPIN , Cottus paulus diversity within and between populations (Table 3). DIAMOND DARTER , Crystallaria cincotta Only 8 of the Desperate Dozen are listed by the VERMILION DARTER , Etheostoma chermocki USFWS: 5 are Endangered and 3 are considered RELICT DARTER , Etheostoma chienense Threatened. Two are Candidate species for listing and 2 BAYOU DARTER , Etheostoma rubrum have no federal status (Table 4). Of the 8 listed species, PEARL DARTER , Percina aurora only 4 have critical habitat determined and 6 have CONASAUGA LOGPERCH , Percina jenkinsi approved recovery plans. We encourage the use of all SPRING PYGMY SUNFISH , Elassoma alabamae available recovery options under the Endangered Species Act to begin the process of habitat restoration and recov - The Desperate Dozen is represented by taxa that ery for these species. belong to seven families of fishes: a sturgeon At every stage of this process, it was clear that many (Acipenseridae), a minnow (Cyprinidae), a catfish other fishes also deserved to be on a list of species in a des - (Ictaluridae), a cavefish (Amblyopsidae), a sculpin perate need for conservation action. While our call to (Cottidae), six darters (Percidae), and a pygmy sunfish action is targeted at only 12 species, the principles behind (Elassomatidae). Five species are restricted to Alabama, their recovery must be applied throughout Southeastern two in Mississippi, and one each in Kentucky, Tennessee, drainages. Without immediate, coordinated action, the and West Virginia. Two species are found in two states: the Southeast stands to lose far more than just the Desperate slender chub ( E. cahni ) in Tennessee and Virginia and the Dozen. Conasauga logperch ( P. jenkinsi ) in Tennessee and Georgia (Fig.1). Seven species have always been restrict - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ed to a small area, some to a single spring or cave, while four were historically wider ranging. Half of the Desperate We would like to thank the World Wildlife Fund and Dozen occupy smaller bodies of water (e.g., springs, cave the particular help of Judy Takats for their support of this pools, creeks), while the other half live in medium and project. All fish illustrations were drawn by Joe Tomelleri. large rivers (Table 1). The main threat for all of these Special thanks to the Florida Museum of Natural History, species is their relatively restricted ranges, where one Tennessee Aquarium, University of Alabama, and the acute pollution or habitat destruction event could cause Region 4 Field and Regional Offices of the U.S. Fish and extinction (Johnson, 1998; Purvis et al., 2000). Habitat Wildlife Service. alteration also impacts all species, from dams, channeliza - tion, and head-cutting in rivers and creeks to pumping of groundwater and the presence of impervious surfaces in Scaphirhynchus suttkusi – Alabama Sturgeon recharge areas for caves and springs (Richter et al., 1996; Watters, 1999; Wenger et al., 2008). All of these habitat Background: One of the rarest vertebrates globally, the alterations potentially lead to population fragmentation Alabama sturgeon is the smallest of eight North American (Dynesius and Nilsson, 1994; Richter et al., 1997). Water sturgeon species (maximum 30.7 in [78 cm] fork length). pollution, especially sedimentation, is also a pervasive Its description in 1991 (Williams and Clemmer, 1991) was
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Research Funding (Total $2,552,481) $15,000 2019
    CURRICULUM VITAE TENNESSEE AQUARIUM CONSERVATION INSTITUTE 175 BAYLOR SCHOOL RD CHATTANOOGA, TN 37405 RESEARCH FUNDING (TOTAL $2,552,481) $15,000 2019. Global Wildlife Conservation. Rediscovering the critically endangered Syr-Darya Shovelnose Sturgeon. $10,000 2019. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Propagation of the Common Logperch as a host for endangered mussel larvae. $8,420 2019. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Monitoring for the Laurel Dace. $4,417 2019. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Examining interactions between Laurel Dace (Chrosomus saylori) and sunfish $12,670 2019. Trout Unlimited. Southern Appalachian Brook Trout propagation for reintroduction to Shell Creek. $106,851 2019. Private Donation. Microplastic accumulation in fishes of the southeast. $1,471. 2019. AZFA-Clark Waldram Conservation Grant. Mayfly propagation for captive propagation programs. $20,000. 2019. Tennessee Valley Authority. Assessment of genetic diversity within Blotchside Logperch. $25,000. 2019. Riverview Foundation. Launching Hidden Rivers in the Southeast. $11,170. 2018. Trout Unlimited. Propagation of Southern Appalachian Brook Trout for Supplemental Reintroduction. $1,471. 2018. AZFA Clark Waldram Conservation Grant. Climate Change Impacts on Headwater Stream Vertebrates in Southeastern United States $1,000. 2018. Hamilton County Health Department. Step 1 Teaching Garden Grants for Sequoyah School Garden. $41,000. 2018. Riverview Foundation. River Teachers: Workshops for Educators. $1,000. 2018. Tennessee Valley Authority. Youth Freshwater Summit $20,000. 2017. Tennessee Valley Authority. Lake Sturgeon Propagation. $7,500 2017. Trout Unlimited. Brook Trout Propagation. $24,783. 2017. Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency. Assessment of Percina macrocephala and Etheostoma cinereum populations within the Duck River Basin. $35,000. 2017. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Status surveys for conservation status of Ashy (Etheostoma cinereum) and Redlips (Etheostoma maydeni) Darters.
    [Show full text]
  • Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2019–0009; FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 167]
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 10/10/2019 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-21478, and on govinfo.gov DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2019–0009; FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 167] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Domestic and Foreign Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of review. SUMMARY: In this candidate notice of review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of plant and animal species that we regard as candidates for or have proposed for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Identification of candidate species can assist environmental planning efforts by providing advance notice of potential listings, and by allowing landowners and resource managers to alleviate threats and thereby possibly remove the need to list species as endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently list a candidate species, the early notice provided here could result in more options for species management and recovery by prompting earlier candidate conservation measures to alleviate threats to the species. This document also includes our findings on resubmitted petitions and describes our 1 progress in revising the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) during the period October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Inventory at Stones River National Battlefield
    Fish Inventory at Stones River National Battlefield Submitted to: Department of the Interior National Park Service Cumberland Piedmont Network By Dennis Mullen Professor of Biology Department of Biology Middle Tennessee State University Murfreesboro, TN 37132 September 2006 Striped Shiner (Luxilus chrysocephalus) – nuptial male From Lytle Creek at Fortress Rosecrans Photograph by D. Mullen Table of Contents List of Tables……………………………………………………………………….iii List of Figures………………………………………………………………………iv List of Appendices…………………………………………………………………..v Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………...……..2 Methods……………………………………………………………………………...3 Results……………………………………………………………………………….7 Discussion………………………………………………………………………….10 Conclusions………………………………………………………………………...14 Literature Cited…………………………………………………………………….15 ii List of Tables Table1: Location and physical characteristics (during September 2006, and only for the riverine sites) of sample sites for the STRI fish inventory………………………………17 Table 2: Biotic Integrity classes used in assessing fish communities along with general descriptions of their attributes (Karr et al. 1986) ………………………………………18 Table 3: List of fishes potentially occurring in aquatic habitats in and around Stones River National Battlefield………………………………………………………………..19 Table 4: Fish species list (by site) of aquatic habitats at STRI (October 2004 – August 2006). MF = McFadden’s Ford, KP = King Pond, RB = Redoubt Brannan, UP = Unnamed Pond at Redoubt Brannan, LC = Lytle Creek at Fortress Rosecrans……...….22 Table 5: Fish Species Richness estimates for the 3 riverine reaches of STRI and a composite estimate for STRI as a whole…………………………………………………24 Table 6: Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores for three stream reaches at Stones River National Battlefield during August 2005………………………………………………...25 Table 7: Temperature and water chemistry of four of the STRI sample sites for each sampling date…………………………………………………………………………….26 Table 8 : Total length estimates of specific habitat types at each riverine sample site.
    [Show full text]
  • Status Review and Surveys for Frecklebelly Madtom, Noturus Munitus
    Noturus munitus, Buttahatchee R., Lowndes Co., AL Final Report: Status review and surveys for Frecklebelly Madtom, Noturus munitus. David A. Neely, Ph. D. Tennessee Aquarium Conservation Institute 175 Baylor School Rd Chattanooga, TN 37405 Background: The frecklebelly madtom, Noturus munitus, was described by Suttkus & Taylor (1965) based largely on specimens from the Pearl River in Louisiana and Mississippi. At that time, the only other known populations occupied the Cahaba and Upper Tombigbee rivers in Alabama and Mississippi. Populations were subsequently discovered in the Alabama, Etowah, and Conasauga rivers (Bryant et. al., 1979). The disjunct distribution displayed by the species prompted an examination of morphological and genetic differentiation between populations of frecklebelly madtom. Between 1997-2001 I gathered morphological, meristic, and mtDNA sequence data on frecklebelly madtoms from across their range. Preliminary morphological data suggested that while there was considerable morphological variation across the range, the populations in the Coosa River drainage above the Fall Line were the most distinctive population and were diagnosable as a distinct form. I presented a talk on this at the Association of Southeastern Biologists meeting in 1998, and despite the lack of a formal description, the published abstract referring to a "Coosa Madtom" made it into the public 1 eye (Neely et al 1998, Boschung and Mayden 2004). This has resulted in substantial confusion over conservation priorities and the status of this form. The subsequent (and also unpublished) mitochondrial DNA data set, however, suggested that populations were moderately differentiated, shared no haplotypes and were related to one another in the following pattern: Pearl[Tombigbee[Cahaba+Coosa]].
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Mississippi Bird EA
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Managing Damage and Threats of Damage Caused by Birds in the State of Mississippi Prepared by United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services In Cooperation with: The Tennessee Valley Authority January 2020 i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wildlife is an important public resource that can provide economic, recreational, emotional, and esthetic benefits to many people. However, wildlife can cause damage to agricultural resources, natural resources, property, and threaten human safety. When people experience damage caused by wildlife or when wildlife threatens to cause damage, people may seek assistance from other entities. The United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (WS) program is the lead federal agency responsible for managing conflicts between people and wildlife. Therefore, people experiencing damage or threats of damage associated with wildlife could seek assistance from WS. In Mississippi, WS has and continues to receive requests for assistance to reduce and prevent damage associated with several bird species. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to incorporate environmental planning into federal agency actions and decision-making processes. Therefore, if WS provided assistance by conducting activities to manage damage caused by bird species, those activities would be a federal action requiring compliance with the NEPA. The NEPA requires federal agencies to have available
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Relationships with Large Wood in Small Streams
    Amencan F~sheriesSociety Symposium 37:179-193, 2003 Fish Relationships with Large Wood in Small Streams USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Department ofFisheries and Wildlife Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060, USA USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station 1000 Front Street, Oxford, Massachusetts 38655, USA Abstracf.-Many ecological processes are associated with large wood in streams, such as forming habitat critical for fish and a host of other organisms. Wood loading in streams varies with age and species of riparian vegetation, stream size, time since last disturbance, and history of land use. Changes in the landscape resulting from homesteading, agriculture, and logging have altered forest environments, which, in turn, changed the physical and biological characteristics of many streams worldwide. Wood is also important in creating refugia for fish and other aquatic species. Removing wood from streams typically results in loss of pool habitat and overall complexity as well as fewer and smaller individuals of both coldwater and warmwater fish species. The life histories of more than 85 species of fish have some association with large wood for cover, spawning (egg attachment, nest materials), and feeding. Many other aquatic organisms, such as crayfish, certain species of freshwater mus- sels, and turtles, also depend on large wood during at least part of their life cycles. Introduction Because decay rate and probability of displace- ment are a function of size, large pieces have a Large wood can profoundly influence the struc- greater influence on habitat and physical processes ture and function of aquatic habitats from head- than small pieces. In general, rootwads, branches, waters to estuaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior
    Vol. 78 Thursday, No. 163 August 22, 2013 Part V Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Diamond Darter (Crystallaria cincotta); Final Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:23 Aug 21, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\22AUR3.SGM 22AUR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 52364 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 163 / Thursday, August 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Virginia Field Office (see ADDRESSES conclusions, and they provided section). If you use a additional information, clarifications, Fish and Wildlife Service telecommunications device for the deaf and suggestions to improve this final (TDD), call the Federal Information rule. The information we received from 50 CFR Part 17 Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. the peer review process is incorporated [Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2013–0019; SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: in this final revised designation. We 4500030114] also considered all comments and Executive Summary information received from the public RIN 1018–AZ40 Why we need to publish a rule. This during the comment periods and is a final rule to designate critical incorporated those comments, as Endangered and Threatened Wildlife habitat for the diamond darter. Under appropriate, into this final rule. and Plants; Designation of Critical the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Previous Federal Actions Habitat for the Diamond Darter amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), (Crystallaria cincotta) we must designate critical habitat, to the The diamond darter was first AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, maximum extent prudent and identified as a candidate for protection Interior.
    [Show full text]
  • Information on the NCWRC's Scientific Council of Fishes Rare
    A Summary of the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina Submitted by Bryn H. Tracy North Carolina Division of Water Resources North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC On behalf of the NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes November 01, 2014 Bigeye Jumprock, Scartomyzon (Moxostoma) ariommum, State Threatened Photograph by Noel Burkhead and Robert Jenkins, courtesy of the Virginia Division of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Southeastern Fishes Council (http://www.sefishescouncil.org/). Table of Contents Page Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 3 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes In North Carolina ........... 4 Summaries from the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina .......................................................................................................................... 12 Recent Activities of NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes .................................................. 13 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part I, Ohio Lamprey .............................................. 14 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part II, “Atlantic” Highfin Carpsucker ...................... 17 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part III, Tennessee Darter ...................................... 20 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in Article Talk Read Edit View history Endangered species From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Main page Contents For other uses, see Endangered species (disambiguation). Featured content "Endangered" redirects here. For other uses, see Endangered (disambiguation). Current events An endangered species is a species which has been categorized as likely to become Random article Conservation status extinct . Endangered (EN), as categorized by the International Union for Conservation of Donate to Wikipedia by IUCN Red List category Wikipedia store Nature (IUCN) Red List, is the second most severe conservation status for wild populations in the IUCN's schema after Critically Endangered (CR). Interaction In 2012, the IUCN Red List featured 3079 animal and 2655 plant species as endangered (EN) Help worldwide.[1] The figures for 1998 were, respectively, 1102 and 1197. About Wikipedia Community portal Many nations have laws that protect conservation-reliant species: for example, forbidding Recent changes hunting , restricting land development or creating preserves. Population numbers, trends and Contact page species' conservation status can be found in the lists of organisms by population. Tools Extinct Contents [hide] What links here Extinct (EX) (list) 1 Conservation status Related changes Extinct in the Wild (EW) (list) 2 IUCN Red List Upload file [7] Threatened Special pages 2.1 Criteria for 'Endangered (EN)' Critically Endangered (CR) (list) Permanent link 3 Endangered species in the United
    [Show full text]
  • ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES
    ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES Tables STEPHEN T. ROSS University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London © 2013 by The Regents of the University of California ISBN 978-0-520-24945-5 uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 1 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 2 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 1.1 Families Composing 95% of North American Freshwater Fish Species Ranked by the Number of Native Species Number Cumulative Family of species percent Cyprinidae 297 28 Percidae 186 45 Catostomidae 71 51 Poeciliidae 69 58 Ictaluridae 46 62 Goodeidae 45 66 Atherinopsidae 39 70 Salmonidae 38 74 Cyprinodontidae 35 77 Fundulidae 34 80 Centrarchidae 31 83 Cottidae 30 86 Petromyzontidae 21 88 Cichlidae 16 89 Clupeidae 10 90 Eleotridae 10 91 Acipenseridae 8 92 Osmeridae 6 92 Elassomatidae 6 93 Gobiidae 6 93 Amblyopsidae 6 94 Pimelodidae 6 94 Gasterosteidae 5 95 source: Compiled primarily from Mayden (1992), Nelson et al. (2004), and Miller and Norris (2005). uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 3 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 3.1 Biogeographic Relationships of Species from a Sample of Fishes from the Ouachita River, Arkansas, at the Confl uence with the Little Missouri River (Ross, pers. observ.) Origin/ Pre- Pleistocene Taxa distribution Source Highland Stoneroller, Campostoma spadiceum 2 Mayden 1987a; Blum et al. 2008; Cashner et al. 2010 Blacktail Shiner, Cyprinella venusta 3 Mayden 1987a Steelcolor Shiner, Cyprinella whipplei 1 Mayden 1987a Redfi n Shiner, Lythrurus umbratilis 4 Mayden 1987a Bigeye Shiner, Notropis boops 1 Wiley and Mayden 1985; Mayden 1987a Bullhead Minnow, Pimephales vigilax 4 Mayden 1987a Mountain Madtom, Noturus eleutherus 2a Mayden 1985, 1987a Creole Darter, Etheostoma collettei 2a Mayden 1985 Orangebelly Darter, Etheostoma radiosum 2a Page 1983; Mayden 1985, 1987a Speckled Darter, Etheostoma stigmaeum 3 Page 1983; Simon 1997 Redspot Darter, Etheostoma artesiae 3 Mayden 1985; Piller et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Part IV: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity to Monitor
    Part IV: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity to Monitor Fish Communities in Wadeable Streams in the Coosa and Tennessee Drainage Basins of the Ridge and Valley Ecoregion of Georgia Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division Fisheries Management Section 2020 Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………… ……... Pg. 1 Map of Ridge and Valley Ecoregion………………………………..……............... Pg. 3 Table 1. State Listed Fish in the Ridge and Valley Ecoregion……………………. Pg. 4 Table 2. IBI Metrics and Scoring Criteria………………………………………….Pg. 5 References………………………………………………….. ………………………Pg. 7 Appendix 1…………………………………………………………………. ………Pg. 8 Coosa Basin Group (ACT) MSR Graphs..………………………………….Pg. 9 Tennessee Basin Group (TEN) MSR Graphs……………………………….Pg. 17 Ridge and Valley Ecoregion Fish List………………………………………Pg. 25 i Introduction The Ridge and Valley ecoregion is one of the six Level III ecoregions found in Georgia (Part 1, Figure 1). It is drained by two major river basins, the Coosa and the Tennessee, in the northwestern corner of Georgia. The Ridge and Valley ecoregion covers nearly 3,000 square miles (United States Census Bureau 2000) and includes all or portions of 10 counties (Figure 1), bordering the Piedmont ecoregion to the south and the Blue Ridge ecoregion to the east. A small portion of the Southwestern Appalachians ecoregion is located in the upper northwestern corner of the Ridge and Valley ecoregion. The biotic index developed by the GAWRD is based on Level III ecoregion delineations (Griffith et al. 2001). The metrics and scoring criteria adapted to the Ridge and Valley ecoregion were developed from biomonitoring samples collected in the two major river basins that drain the Ridge and Valley ecoregion, the Coosa (ACT) and the Tennessee (TEN).
    [Show full text]